We explore the indeterminacy which arises when quantum mechanics is used to explain state changes of physical systems. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the end state of a physical system generally has no determinable properties prior to being measured. Quantum mechanics can only predict probabilities of anticipated measurements results. The Copenhagen interpretation remains the most commonly taught interpretation of quantum mechanics. It holds that the act of measurement affects the system, causing the system to reduce to one of several probable states immediately upon measurement. This is known as wave function collapse. We discuss alternatives to the Copenhagen interpretation, including the de Broglie‑Bohm pilot‑wave interpretation, and we offer the spacetime topology interpretation.
We explore the indeterminacy which arises when quantum mechanics is used to explain state changes of physical systems. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the end state of a physical system generally has no determinable properties prior to being measured. Quantum mechanics can only predict probabilities of anticipated measurements results. The Copenhagen interpretation remains the most commonly taught interpretation of quantum mechanics. It holds that the act of measurement affects the system, causing the system to reduce to one of several probable states immediately upon measurement. This is known as wave function collapse. We discuss alternatives to the Copenhagen interpretation, including the de Broglie‑Bohm pilot‑wave interpretation, and we offer the spacetime topology interpretation.
The dominance of the Copenhagen interpretation is the result of a historical accident (Cushing, 1994). At the Solvay conference in 1927, Louis de Broglie put forward the deterministic pilot wave theory, described later. Never slow to criticize, Pauli jumped up and demolished de Broglie’s proposal, and de Broglie was so discouraged by this that he did not develop his interpretation any further. The Copenhagen interpretation was then developed by Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli and many others, as described in the previous chapter. It was strongly supported by von Neumann’s proof of the impossibility of hidden variables. Years later, in 1952, Bohm published a deterministic hidden variable theory, showing that there must be something wrong with von Neumann’s proof. The error was found by John Bell in 1966, as described in the last chapter, and he also showed how Pauli’s objections to de Broglie’s original idea can be answered. If this had been done at the conference in 1927, quantum mechanics could have been interpreted deterministically from the beginning. The essential mistake in the Copenhagen interpretation is to treat it as a complete account of the behaviour of each individual system. It is frequently claimed that it enables us to calculate, at least in principle, everything that can be measured. Thus Hooft (1997, p. 11) said that ‘The laws of quantum mechanics have been formulated very accurately. We know exactly how to compute anything we would like to know.’ Also Peierls (1997, p. 25) has said that quantum mechanics ‘had become a complete and consistent scheme capable of giving a unique answer to any questions relating to actual or possible observations’. Even if this were true, it would not imply that it is the final complete theory, for it is always possible that some new phenomenon might be found that cannot be calculated quantum-mechanically. However, it is not true: there are many phenomena such as the time of decay of a radioactive nucleus, or the direction a particle is scattered by a nucleus, that cannot be calculated, even in principle. Quantum mechanics is therefore an incomplete theory. We can only calculate the statistical properties of these systems, such as the half-life of a radioactive decay or the differential scattering cross-section that gives the probabilities that a particle is scattered through various angles. All measurements of quantum systems are of this statistical character. It might be thought that the possibility of making measurements on a single electron provides an exception to this. However, even in such cases the electron is continually bathed in a fluctuating background radiation from nearby atoms. Since this is variable, that electron is a member of an ensemble of electrons subject to different fluctuations. All these examples clearly demonstrate the statistical character of quantum mechanics. ‘I am rather firmly convinced’, Einstein (in Schilpp, 1949, pp. 666, 671) remarked, ‘that the essentially statistical character of contemporary quantum theory is solely to be ascribed to fact that this theory operates with an incomplete description of physical systems’. As a result, ‘the c-function is to be understood as the description not of a single system but of an ensemble of systems’. So, ‘if the statistical quantum theory does not pretend to describe the individual system completely, it appears unavoidable to look elsewhere for a complete description of the individual systems’. Thus ‘the difficulties of theoretical interpretation disappear, if one views the quantum-mechanical description as a description of an ensemble of systems’. If this is achieved, ‘the statistical theory would, within the framework of future physics, take an approximately analogous position to statistical mechanics within the framework of classical mechanics’. ‘Thus, essentially, nothing has changed since Galileo or Newton or Faraday concerning the status of the ‘‘observer’’ or our ‘‘consciousness’’ or of our ‘‘information’’ in physics’ (Popper, 1982, p. 46). Once this is accepted, the quantum paradoxes that plagued the Copenhagen interpretation are easily resolved, as described below. In any textbook of quantum mechanics problems such as the calculation of the energy levels of the hydrogen atom are solved as if that hydrogen atom is alone in the universe. As Feynman (1972) remarked, ‘when we solve a quantum-mechanical problem, what we really do is to divide the universe into two parts – the system in which we are interested and the rest of the universe. We then usually act as if the system in which we are interested comprised the whole universe.’ In fact, however, every hydrogen atom on which measurements are made is surrounded by other atoms and exposed to their radiations. Quantum mechanics somehow takes this into account and gives the average behaviour of an ensemble of hydrogen atoms. A more detailed theory takes these influences into account. One attempt to do this is stochastic electrodynamics, described in a later section.
In our quantum mechanics courses, measurement is usually taught in passing, as an ad-hoc procedure involving the ugly collapse of the wave function. No wonder we search for more satisfying alternatives to the Copenhagen interpretation. But this overlooks the fact that the approach fits very well with modern measurement theory with its notions of the conditioned state and quantum trajectory. In addition, what we know of as the Copenhagen interpretation is a later 1950s development and some of the earlier pioneers like Bohr did not talk of wave function collapse. In fact, if one takes these earlier ideas and mixes them with later insights of decoherence, a much more satisfying version of Copenhagen quantum mechanics emerges, one for which the collapse of the wave function is seen to be a harmless book keeping device. Along the way, we explain why chaotic systems lead to wave functions that spread out quickly on macroscopic scales implying that Schrödinger cat states are the norm rather than curiosities generated in physicists’ laboratories. We then describe how the conditioned state of a quantum system depends crucially on how the system is monitored illustrating this with the example of a decaying atom monitored with a time of arrival photon detector, leading to Bohr’s quantum jumps. On the other hand, other kinds of detection lead to much smoother behaviour, providing yet another example of complementarity. Finally we explain how classical behaviour emerges, including classical mechanics but also thermodynamics.
In 1957 H. Everett published a paper setting out what seemed to be a radically new interpretation of quantum mechanics. His approach has recently received increasing attention. He did not refer to the ideas of de Broglie of thirty years before nor to the intervening elaboration of those ideas by Bohm. Yet it will be argued here that the elimination of arbitrary and inessential elements from Everett's theory leads back to, and throws new light on, the concepts of de Broglie. Everett was motivated by the notion of a quantum theory of gravitation and cosmology. In a thoroughly quantum cosmology, a quantum mechanics of the whole world, the wave function of the world could not be interpreted in the usual way. For this usual interpretation refers only to the statistics of measurement results for an observer intervening from outside the quantum system. When that system is the whole world, there is nothing outside. This situation presents no particular difficulty for the traditional (or ‘Copenhagen’) philosophy, which holds that a classical conception of the macroscopic world is logically prior to the quantum conception of the microscopic. The microscopic world is described by wave functions which are determined by and have implications for macroscopic phenomena in experimental set-ups.
The Copenhagen interpretation has been the subject of much criticism, notably by De Broglie and Einstein, because it contradicts the principles of causality and realism. The aim of this essay is to study the wave mechanics as an alternative to traditional quantum mechanics, in the continuity of the ideas of Louis de Broglie: the pilot wave theory of De Broglie (where each particle is associated with a wave which guides it), De Broglie-Bohm theory, stochastic electrodynamics (where the stochastic character of particles is caused by the energy field of the fluctuating vacuum), and the analogies between quantum mechanics and hydrodynamics.
Quantum mechanics has been enormously successful in explaining the behavior of microsystems such as molecules, atoms, and nuclei. We have seen that quantum mechanics describes a quantum system by the wave function ψ, which is the solution of the Schro¨dinger equation. The wave function determines the probability amplitudes (whose modulus squared gives the probability) for all possible outcomes of a measurement corresponding to an observable on the system. In general, the wave function does not uniquely predict the result of a measurement; it only provides a probability distribution for all possible results of the measurement on a quantum system. Only if the system happens to be in an eigenstate corresponding to the observable being measured, is the result of a measurement of this observable completely predictable. On the other hand, the results of measurements corresponding to a conjugate or non-commuting observable, on the same system in the same state, are indeterminate. Quantum mechanical description of physical systems raises profound questions: How are the wave function and the probabilities for different outcomes of a measurement to be interpreted? Does the wave function represent a single system or an ensemble of systems? Does the physical system actually have the attribute corresponding to the measurement in question or does the measurement itself create the attribute? These questions led to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, which were vigorously debated during the years of its discovery as also in the following decades. The new idea of indeterminacy was especially difficult to reconcile with the long-held view that a physical theory should aim at predicting accurately, and without ambiguity, the result of any measurement on any system, big or small. These debates not only gave us a deeper understanding of quantum mechanics but also changed profoundly the way we view the micro-world.
This paper discusses the relation between the decoherent histories approach to quantum mechanics that is based on coarse-grained decoherent histories of a closed system, and the approximate quantum mechanics of measured subsystems, as in the Copenhagen interpretation. We show how the a classical world used in such formulations is not to something to be postulated but rather explained by suitable sets of alternative histories of quasiclassical variables. We discuss the general definition of measurement, the collapse of the wave function, and irreversibility from the perspective of decoherent histories quantum theory..